Go Back   the Magicball Network > Forums > MBN Main Forums > Off topic
Buy LBA1/Relentless from GOG.com Buy LBA1/Relentless from DotEmu Buy LBA2/Twinsen's Odyssey from DotEmu Buy LBA2/Twinsen's Odyssey from GOG.com Buy Little big Adventure from GOG.com or DotEmu Buy Little big Adventure 2 from DotEmu or GOG.com

Welcome to the Magicball Network.

You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Off topic General off-topic chat goes in here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #3151  
Old 2010-05-28, 17:42
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,794
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
I always thought that was a bit dumb of Sayid anyway, given that lots of artworks (ie, cartoons) draw people with 4 toes or figures anyway :P
Likewise, what's so disturbing about seeing a ruin? Surely it would have been more disturbing if it was perfectly in one piece?
[/randomness]
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #3152  
Old 2010-05-28, 18:08
ChaosFish ChaosFish is offline
weee
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Viking Mothership, Quarantine Chamber
Posts: 21,214
Darkf - What I meant was that as nice as your explanation is, it's junk science (no offence!). I was trying to point out that one should avoid claiming i.e. "you can't prove there's no god!" as an argument for the validility of the belief in god because it's simply not an argument. Your motives for believing in anything should be clear to you, before anything. "Afterlife" is just as unlikely as rivers flowing with chocolate. But I want to believe in that. And in fairies.

Reading again Anakin's post about chemical reactions being a product of thought instead of the other way around: I like it. It's a nice idea. But not sure I'm buying it.
Reply With Quote
  #3153  
Old 2010-05-28, 18:28
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,493
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
No need to buy it, just to see that there's no real reason to prefer one option over the other, and that by claiming otherwise atheists are practicing the superstition they are so critical of.

I love science, which is why I hate seeing it turn into a new religion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #3154  
Old 2010-05-28, 18:39
ChaosFish ChaosFish is offline
weee
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Viking Mothership, Quarantine Chamber
Posts: 21,214
I'm not an atheist, surprise surprise. I believe life, the universe and everything is bigger than what the human mind can possibly comprehend. But I also believe in a productive thought process.

There is a reason to prefer one option over another. Sure, you can believe in whatever you feel like and completely ignore all evidence and scientific findings, but then you'd just be a crazy person.
Reply With Quote
  #3155  
Old 2010-05-28, 20:31
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,794
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosFish View Post
Darkf - What I meant was that as nice as your explanation is, it's junk science (no offence!). I was trying to point out that one should avoid claiming i.e. "you can't prove there's no god!" as an argument for the validility of the belief in god because it's simply not an argument. Your motives for believing in anything should be clear to you, before anything. "Afterlife" is just as unlikely as rivers flowing with chocolate. But I want to believe in that. And in fairies.
No, because chocolate and rivers are known variables, and we know how they behave. We could make a river of chocolate, but we have sufficient knowledge to state they wouldn't occur naturally. (at least, in this universe, with this laws of physics). Ditto for fairies. We know why these things cant exist in this reality we have observed.

However, you cant make statements about things outside our laws of physics, and nor on the possibility of emulated universe's. Its like stating rolling a "6" is unlikely on a dice, without knowing how many sides the die has.
This certainly is not junk science, its simply a currently untestable hypothesis.

There has, however, been papers written on the likelihood of simulated worlds;
http://www.simulation-argument.com/computer.pdf

My own view is that in this universe, given the current progression of entropy, makes simulated worlds likely to be developed purely because living in a simulation would be more energy efficient. That, unfortunately, doesn't in the slightest give us any clues as to if our own universe is already an emulation.

This hasn't got much to do with even a view of God, mind you. Seeing as God is such a poorly defined concept as to be meaningless in itself. Most definitions of God arn't even self-consistent.

FYI, I dont like talking about what I "belief" btw. It seems so unprecise. I talk of what I find likely/unlikely. Possible/impossible. consistent/inconsistent. etc.

Quote:
Reading again Anakin's post about chemical reactions being a product of thought instead of the other way around: I like it. It's a nice idea. But not sure I'm buying it.
Maybe the brain is a device driver or codex for the consciousness :P
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #3156  
Old 2010-05-28, 21:23
ChaosFish ChaosFish is offline
weee
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Viking Mothership, Quarantine Chamber
Posts: 21,214
Just a correction from my previous post: Apperantly I am an atheist, I was just confused about the defenition of the word

I have a better example: Forget the rivers of chocolate. I draw you a random shape on a paper and tell you there's a rock in that exact shape and size orbiting around Jupiter. You have no way of proving it's not so. Are the odds of that rock orbiting around Jupiter 50-50 just because neither of us can prove it?
Reply With Quote
  #3157  
Old 2010-05-28, 21:26
ChaosFish ChaosFish is offline
weee
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Viking Mothership, Quarantine Chamber
Posts: 21,214
Oh and sorry for not replaying on what you said about the emulation right now, it's interesting, I should think about it for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #3158  
Old 2010-05-29, 01:55
Medur's Avatar
Medur Medur is offline
LBA fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosFish View Post
I have a better example: Forget the rivers of chocolate. I draw you a random shape on a paper and tell you there's a rock in that exact shape and size orbiting around Jupiter. You have no way of proving it's not so. Are the odds of that rock orbiting around Jupiter 50-50 just because neither of us can prove it?
The odds of that rock orbiting around Jupiter are 50-50.

The odds of that rock orbiting around Jupiter, considering all the other things which are known to orbit around Jupiter, and all the information we have about the universe, is very difficult to calculate. And certainly very low.

The odds of that rock orbiting around Jupiter, considering all the other things which are not known to orbit around Jupiter - such as invisible chocolate bunnies - is currently impossible to calculate and cannot be guessed on.

You could assume only the second 'category' of odds I mentioned is valid. You can elegantly defend your view. Yet you cannot prove it.

That's terrible, isn't it?

Well, it's the reality.

What is your point?
Reply With Quote
  #3159  
Old 2010-05-29, 01:55
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,493
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosFish View Post
I'm not an atheist, surprise surprise. I believe life, the universe and everything is bigger than what the human mind can possibly comprehend. But I also believe in a productive thought process.

There is a reason to prefer one option over another. Sure, you can believe in whatever you feel like and completely ignore all evidence and scientific findings, but then you'd just be a crazy person.
I didn't mean there's no reason to prefer any one option over any other at all.
I was talking about two specific options, "matter causing mind" vs. "mind causing matter"

Quote:
I have a better example: Forget the rivers of chocolate. I draw you a random shape on a paper and tell you there's a rock in that exact shape and size orbiting around Jupiter. You have no way of proving it's not so. Are the odds of that rock orbiting around Jupiter 50-50 just because neither of us can prove it?
We're not stupid, we understand that not being able to disprove something doesn't imply it's automatically true.
It's just that nothing you said really counters anything we said.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.

Last edited by Reek; 2010-05-29 at 02:01.
Reply With Quote
  #3160  
Old 2010-05-29, 02:03
Medur's Avatar
Medur Medur is offline
LBA fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 2,981
By the way.

The assumption that theists ignore science and can only argue in favour of their beliefs by denying the possibility of counter proofs comes from ignorance.

Theists can defend their views just as reasonably as atheists. Yet people insist on comparing the most stupid of theists to the brightest of atheists. In a balanced discussion, there is no winning side.
Reply With Quote
  #3161  
Old 2010-05-29, 02:10
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,493
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Yes, basically:

Theism:"no one created god, he always existed"
Atheism:"no one created the universe, it always existed"

Why people think there's a difference between the two is beyond me.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #3162  
Old 2010-05-29, 02:14
Aule's Avatar
Aule Aule is offline
Idot
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: K of S
Posts: 1,853
Send a message via ICQ to Aule
If god doesn't exist, explain boobs.

/thread
Reply With Quote
  #3163  
Old 2010-05-29, 02:15
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,493
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Finally someone with some common sense, sheesh!



(. Y .)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #3164  
Old 2010-05-29, 02:58
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,794
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin View Post
Yes, basically:

Theism:"no one created god, he always existed"
Atheism:"no one created the universe, it always existed"

Why people think there's a difference between the two is beyond me.
Because the first one requires that both God and -some sort of universe- existed. (ye old "if god created the universe where did he stand" argument. If something exists in some form, it has to exist somewhere).

Also, atheism prepose's that a universe "just existing" is more simple then a sentient being able to create a universe "just existing". Its a Oxiums Razer argument essentially.
This might well be wrong, but it is distinctly different, imho.

Of course, this all skips over Pantheism, which God is the universe. Which, imho, is the most likely deity concept.

Quote:
I have a better example: Forget the rivers of chocolate. I draw you a random shape on a paper and tell you there's a rock in that exact shape and size orbiting around Jupiter. You have no way of proving it's not so. Are the odds of that rock orbiting around Jupiter 50-50 just because neither of us can prove it?
The point was not "its 50/50 because it cant be prooved" (which certainly isnt true of anything).
The point was you cant state the odds of anything at all when you have no known variables of whats involved.
We know having an absolutely identical rock in our universe is minute possibility. This is because we know rocks. We know, to some extent, about how they are shaped.

Trying to guess at the probability's that our observable universe is a simulation is an absolute impossibility, however.

Its not 50/50
Its ?? / ??
:P

We just have no reference points. We can see its possible in our universe, ergo, we know its possible under at least one set of laws of physics.
And because of that it cant be dismissed.
But short of running some sort of insane meta-universe experiment of looking at universe's with different laws, waiting for the formation of intelligent live and then seeing how many create "sub universe's" and how many of those sub ones create sub-sub universes (etc)......you could never state a probability.

And, of course, that sort of experiment would be probably as about impossible as you can get.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #3165  
Old 2010-05-29, 10:17
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,493
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
DF:
The difference is very superficial imo.
We have no idea what "simple" means when it comes to universes being created. We've only ever lived in one universe, and even that one we haven't seen being created. We have no point of reference for coming up with a likely scenario with the creation of the universe.

Saying that a universe "just existing" is simpler only makes sense if you compare the creation of the universe to the creation of objects within the universe.

But we know by now that there's no room for such a comparison,
the universe isn't a creation. It'd be more exact to call it "creativity".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #3166  
Old 2010-05-30, 11:13
ChaosFish ChaosFish is offline
weee
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Viking Mothership, Quarantine Chamber
Posts: 21,214
I'm not saying nothing created the universe, but yeah, sure, no ONE created the universe, if by "one" you mean a humanoid god. But it does seem reasonable to me to think that the laws of physics in a higher-reality created the laws of physics in this one.

Now comparing this with DF's emulation theory, it's kinda similar. Only I wouldn't call it an emulation. It's as real as anything.

Aule: That about sums up the logic beyond god.

I brought that 50-50 example thingy just because that's the argument YOU brought to ME. You say science is a religion. Science is the exact opposite of a religion. Science is all about using the tools us humans have, to figure out things in the only way we can. Religion is about following someone who says something regardless of how they came up with that nonsense. Sure, some people follow scientific theories without having any idea what they mean. Those people might be religious. But not science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medur View Post
Theists can defend their views just as reasonably as atheists. Yet people insist on comparing the most stupid of theists to the brightest of atheists. In a balanced discussion, there is no winning side.
Oh really?
Reply With Quote
  #3167  
Old 2010-05-30, 18:23
Medur's Avatar
Medur Medur is offline
LBA fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosFish View Post
Religion is about following someone who says something regardless of how they came up with that nonsense.
That's not what religion is about.

Quote:
Oh really?
Yes, really.
Reply With Quote
  #3168  
Old 2010-05-30, 18:25
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,493
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaosfish
Religion is about following someone who says something regardless of how they came up with that nonsense.
No, it's not.
What you think of as religion is actually a kind of politics, it has nothing to do with true religion.

Also, people who think that religion is an attempt to understand the material world (and therefore at odds with science) doesn't know the meaning of the term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosFish View Post


Oh really?
Yeah, I explained why.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.

Last edited by Reek; 2010-05-30 at 18:38.
Reply With Quote
  #3169  
Old 2010-05-30, 21:22
ChaosFish ChaosFish is offline
weee
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Viking Mothership, Quarantine Chamber
Posts: 21,214
I guess I explained myself too. Ah well, this discussion obviously came to it's gruesome end. (same as everytime with this discussion... sigh)
Reply With Quote
  #3170  
Old 2010-05-31, 01:56
Gustav Sweden's Avatar
Gustav Sweden Gustav Sweden is offline
Hello
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Oresund Region
Posts: 8,009
Send a message via MSN to Gustav Sweden
I just watched Battlestar Galactica. Took me less than a month..

And that series was class. Absolutely top class. All the different issues it takes up, the (relative) absence of clichés (sp?), good acting, etc. Only the end wasn't really as good as the rest, even though it was all right.

Spoilers below:
Spoiler:
Best parts: Probably the end of season 2 and beginning of 3 (with Baltar becoming president and the cylon invasion) and the mutiny in season 4.


While being in sci-fi, I also watched the new V series. That was an absurd waste of time, although I wanted to see how it ended so I kept on watching. Bad acting, useless and "unrealistic" story, clichées, irritating glitches and all the time details that it is hard to "buy" as a viewer.
__________________
People like Coldplay, but they don't love them. People like U2, but they don't love them. But people fucking love Oasis. That's the way it is. It's more than the music.
-Noel Gallagher
Reply With Quote
  #3171  
Old 2010-05-31, 13:19
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 8,100
Anakin, all major religions try to make factual claims about the real world or functioning in it. And these claims are either the so called miracles which require both the suspension of the physical rules governing the world and the suspension of reason and a blind following of the claim; or claims of an anthropological or social nature that have an impact on our daily lives - like morality.

All religions make these, (you'd be a fool to claim otherwise) to varrying degrees, and they can be, and should be challanged on the grounds of their (the claims') validity.

No, Chaosfish, there is no contradiction between being an atheist and thinking about and considering the transcendent, there is no claim of a religious nature in saying that there may very well be something greater then ourselves.

Also, a religion is an ideology that requires the suspense of disbelief - of critical thinking and a blind following of the dogma regardless of the evidence for and against it. And how enlightened you are, how tollerant you are as a religious person makes no difference - at some point you have to say there is an unquestionable dogma you follow, a dogma you have faith in - otherwise you're not a follower of that religion... Making claims of a metaphysical nature is not really necessary. So you have things like the world's major religions but also ideologies like faschism or communism - that all require the suspense of disbelief and the acceptance of the central, "unquestionable" dogma.

So what Medur said is only valid to some degree, theists can and do defend their claims, often with great eloquence and knowledge, but they always end up defending claims about the real world, that can be verified and their validity can be tested. You can't escape from the faith in the dogma if you are religious - there is a point where their defence stops, as the unwavering faith is a central element in all religions.

That's what a real religion is, what Anakin is thinking about is some sort of a philosophy or a worldview. However it also won't escape reason, if it tries to make claims of a physical, anthropological - psychological nature it will and should be questioned on the basis of these claims. No matter what idealistic view you have of religions, the numbers show that it's not like that - religions do make factual claims both about this life and most often then not the alleged next one (on which they also have no data and authority to speak about...), and require a suspension of disbelief from their followers. Simple as that.

Darklfame it's Ockham's razor (or Occam's razor)... you've reached a new low!
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure

Last edited by Jasiek; 2010-05-31 at 13:37.
Reply With Quote
  #3172  
Old 2010-06-01, 00:07
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,794
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
I'll try to tied up this thread sometime elsewhere and continue with the conversations here, but back ontopic..
---

The Big Bang Theory - 20/21/22/23 - Ok stuff. Not consistent laughs, but the season final was great . Also its always interesting reading those after-credit vanity cards. (if disturbing at times)

How I Met Your Mother - 20/21/22/23/24 Again, not as consistently funny as they once were, but some really smart storylines here. Almost Moffitt worthy.
I loved "The Wedding Bride" especially. Neat plotline and quite a few funny easter eggs. (check out the words on all the baggages at the end). Like TBBT, the season final was also great.

Flash Forward Series Final - That was...actualy, really well done. Almost all the plotlines coming together. I'm now quite sad it didnt get renewed

V Season Final - Not bad at all. Not very deep or complex, or smart...just well done scenes with occasion nice scripting. I'm pleased its renewed, but would rathe rhave something more complex like Flash Forward.

Doctor Who "The Hungry Earth" and "Cold Blood" - While not at its best, as such, this was a solid story with a great morality/feeling to the lot. The last few minutes were both emotional and with a hint of epic to come.
Did I mention this season has freaking rocked?

In fact, aside from Doctor Who....tv is over now
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #3173  
Old 2010-06-01, 13:59
wacko's Avatar
wacko wacko is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,919
Hey I thought Better Off Ted was cancelled, but I suddenly see two more episodes of season two scheduled for June 17th. Perhaps it's just the final eps they had lying around and might as well air them.

Yep, TV is pretty much over. Got lots of catching up to do though.
It was a pretty good season for TV!
Reply With Quote
  #3174  
Old 2010-06-01, 14:16
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,794
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Yes it was cancelled
They are just (finally) showing the two last episodes.
And yeah,we had quite a lot of good TV.

Only thing coming up now is new seasons of Eureka and Warehouse 13. Both ok for a bit of dumb fun, but nothing spectacular.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #3175  
Old 2010-06-01, 15:59
ChaosFish ChaosFish is offline
weee
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Viking Mothership, Quarantine Chamber
Posts: 21,214
The more I watch tv, the more I realize the only shows that are really good are British.

Lost was revolutionary and awesome, but all the religion and general Americanization of everything and everyone, and the way it ended hoping we'd forget all the questions brought up through the seasons made me think much less of it.

V is retarded. Nice, but retarded.

FlashForward would be ok if it didn't have so many plotholes. So many of them! And not to mention I hate the main character. (still didn't watch the final episode)

Heroes was starting out awesome in the first season, but after that the writing became amateurish at best.

Why aren't there good tv shows these days? Because if anyone dared making one it'll only get canceled.

The 4400 was awesome, even if flawed at times, until it was canceled.

Kyle XY was big on American values and that stuff, but I was ok with it. It was great until it got canceled.

Other AWESOME American shows that got cancelled:
Surface, Threshold, Sliders (worse than canceled - picked by other writers), The Dead Zone (a gruesome case of dementia before cancellation though), more that I don't remember right now...

I'm most looking forward for new season of Misfits.

I watched the first couple of episodes of Caprica (Battlestar Galactica prequel), but it was so so so so so so so preaching for Christianity that I couldn't stand another minute of it. Other than that it was kinda nice.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
series, shows, television

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
watch and enjoy BloodzTunic LBA Modifications - General 17 2009-01-16 16:54
I want to watch TV online... Kitarii Off topic 23 2007-07-14 01:18
Watch out for the press elmuerte Off topic 13 2006-01-24 07:43
Just got to watch all the terminators again... Xakep_INC Off topic 20 2003-09-07 17:38


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:52.


News Feed
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, the Magicball Network